McLain v. Pensacola Coach Corp.
| Decision Date | 04 May 1943 |
| Citation | 152 Fla. 876,13 So.2d 221 |
| Parties | McLAIN v, PENSACOLA COACH CORPORATION. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Escambia County; R. A. McGeachy judge.
Merritt Brown & Newberry, of Pensacola, for appellant.
Watson & Pasco & Brown, of Pensacola, for appellee.
In this case the appellant, plaintiff in the court below, brought suit against the defendant to recover damages for an assault and bettery alleged to have been committed by the defendant's servant who was engaged in operating one of defendant's buses in Escambia County, Florida. The allegations of the first and second counts are quite similar. However, the first count was evidently relied on by the plaintiff as laying the ground for the recovery of exemplary or punitive damages. That count alleged, inter alia, that the defendant's servant maliciously and violently struck plaintiff across the face causing certain described injuries. The second count omitted the word 'maliciously.' Each count claimed damages in the sum of $1,500.
After the evidence was all in, the trial judge instructed the jury that the evidence in the case did not show that the act alleged was maliciously and violently done as set forth in the first count, and withdrew that count from the consideration of the declaration and submitted the case to the jury upon the second count, telling them that under such second count the jury would not be justified in rendering a verdict for punitive damages. It does not appear that there was any error on the part of the court in charging the jury as to the elements of actual damages which were recoverable under said second count. Viewing this case from the standpoint of the trial judge, as one in which the plaintiff was only entitled to recover actual damages for the assault and battery alleged in the declaration, the Court's charge appears to be clear, comprehensive and correct. The jury returned a vedict in favor of the defendant, thereby holding that on the evidence the plaintiff had not made out a case even for actual damages. The motion for new trial was based, among other things, upon the action of the court in withdrawing from the consideration of the jury the first count of the declaration, and in charging the jury that they could not find exemplary or punitive damages for the plaintiff.
Our view of this case is that the allegations of both counts, if proved by a preponderance of the evidence, were sufficient to authorize a verdict for exemplary as well as compensatory damages. See Smith v. Bagwell, 19 Fla. 117, 45 Am.Rep. 12; Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308, 171 So 214; Setzer v. Tyre, 126 Fla. 139, 171 So. 224; Kress & Co. v. Powell, 132 Fla. 471, 180 So. 757.
The question arises whether or not the error of the court in withdrawing from the consideration of the jury the question of exemplary damages was harmless error in view of the jury's verdict. The Court had charged the jury that if the plaintiff proved the allegations of the second count of her declaration by a preponderance of the evidence, she was entitled to recover actual or compensatory damages, the elements of which were correctly defined by the court. The evidence was in sharp conflict. The testimony of the several witnesses introduced by the plaintiff was sufficient, if believed by the jury, to make out a case, not only for compensatory damages, but also for exemplary damages. On the other hand the testimony of the several witnesses introduced by the defendant, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to sustain and uphold the jury's verdict in favor of the defendant. So, we might with confidence say that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olson v. Truax
...of the verdict on the counterclaim are : McCary v. Alabama Great Southern R. Co., 182 Ala. 597, 62 So. 18, 23-24; McLain v. Pensacola Coach Corp., 152 Fla. 876, 13 So.2d 221; Smith v. Cooper, 73 Idaho 99, 245 P.2d 816, 819; Ambrose v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America, 124 N.J.L. 438......
-
Liggett Group, Inc. v. Engle
...damages are shown." Ault v. Lohr, 538 So.2d at 455 (citations omitted). It then clarified its prior decision in McLain v. Pensacola Coach Corp., 152 Fla. 876, 13 So.2d 221 (1943), and held that a jury finding of liability is the equivalent of finding nominal damages. Thus, a jury may assess......
-
Gregg v. U.S. Industries, Inc.
...in a tort action unless the jury finds the defendant liable for compensatory, or at least nominal, damages. McLain v. Pensacola Coach Corp., 152 Fla. 876, 13 So.2d 221 (1943); Hanft v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 402 So.2d 453 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981); Hauser Motor Co. v. Byrd, 3......
-
Guthartz v. Lewis
...and punitive damages, and explained that the former requirement "unless actual damages are shown," see McLain v. Pensacola Coach Corporation, 152 Fla. 876, 13 So.2d 221 (1943), means only "unless liability is shown on the underlying cause of action," Lassiter, supra, 349 So.2d at 622. Some ......